- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:22:07 -0400
- To: public-swd-wg@w3.org,public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
The record of today's RDFa Task Force telecon is now available as
http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-rdfa-minutes.html
A text snapshot follows.
----
RDF in XHTML Task Force
09 Oct 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Oct/0099.html
See also: [3]IRC log, previous [4]2008-10-02
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-rdfa-irc
[4] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-rdfa-minutes.html
Attendees
Present
Ralph Swick, Steven Pemberton, Mark Birbeck, Shane McCarron,
Manu Sporny
Regrets
Ben Adida, Michael Hausenblas
Chair
Manu
Scribe
Ralph
Contents
* Topics
1. Action Review
2. RDFa attributes in SVG Tiny
3. Thoughts on Latest Primer
4. Axel Polleres' comments
5. Publishing Issues
6. Dean Edridge's comments
* Summary of Action Items
_____________________________________________________
Ralph: I'm adding RDFa to the XHTML namespace document (XHTML
version) too
... to get [13]the online GRDDL extractor to work
[13] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/grddl/?docAddr=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F1999%2Fxhtml%2FOverview.xhtml&output=turtleplain
Action Review
ACTION: [DONE] Ben ask Shane to produce an updated Syntax with
editorial changes for the WG to review next week [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-rdfa-minutes.html#action17]
[14] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-rdfa-minutes.html#action17
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ben to close loop with Danny. [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-rdfa-minutes.html#action19]
[15] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-rdfa-minutes.html#action19
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Jeremy to demonstrate GRDDL with XHTML/RDFa once
the NS URI is set up. [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action03]
[16] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action03
Ralph: I've been asked to demonstrate that our GRDDL namespace
markup works via [17]http://www.w3.org/2007/08/grddl
[17] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/grddl
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Manu talk with Jamie McCarthy about an
AskSlashdot piece [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action04]
[18] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action04
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Manu to write summary for Semantic Web Use Cases
for Ivan. [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
[19] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action09
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Manu write the perl code for Slashdot. [recorded
in [20]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
[20] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action11
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Mark create base wizard suitable for cloning
[recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
[21] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action12
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Mark write foaf examples for wiki [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
[22] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action13
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa
Wiki [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action14]
[23] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action14
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ralph think about RSS+RDFa [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action15]
[24] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action15
RDFa attributes in SVG Tiny
<Steven>
[25]http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/metadata.html#MetadataAttribute
s
[25] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/metadata.html#MetadataAttributes
-> "[26]Late notice: RDFa in SVG 1.2 'tiny'" [Steven 2008-10-09]
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Oct/0097.html
Manu: should we suggest they adopt RDFa more closely?
Mark: they insist on a:b format which is incorrect
... it would be a shame to insist on this
Manu: so ask that they not misuse @property and @typeof
Shane: I'm planning to send the same comment w.r.t. @role
Manu: so ask the SVG folk to follow the pattern of RDFa usage set by
XHTML
... if you choose to use these [RDFa] attributes
Shane: yes, there are modules and those modules should be used --
and the modules have behavioral characteristics
Manu: I'll try to write up a draft comment today
ACTION: Manu to create SVG Tiny draft comment and send to RDFa list
for feedback before sending to SVG Tiny workgroup. [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
-> [28]Dan Brickley's comment on requiring a:b for RDFa in SVG tiny
[28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Oct/0101.html
Thoughts on Latest Primer
-> "[29]Primer, and regrets for tomorrow [Ben 2008-10-08]
[29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Oct/0093.html
<msporny> [30]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/
[30] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/
Manu: Section 4.1 added
Shane: typo in 4.1; s/2. Distributing and/2. Distributing an/
Manu: 4.1 looks good to me
Ralph: me too
Shane: looks fine
Steven: yep
<markbirbeck> s/RDF extensibility is the same that enables/RDF
extensibility is the same as that which enables/
<markbirbeck> s/Once an RDF vocabulary created/Once an RDF
vocabulary is created/
Mark: typo in 4.1, 2nd sentence; "RDF extensibility is the same that
enables RDFa extensibility"
Ralph: just insert "mechanism" after "same"
Mark: 3rd sentence; "Once an RDF vocabulary /+is+/ created, ..."
... not sure this is territory we should get into
Ralph: I do think this minimal information is needed
Mark: people who don't know this won't be able to do it from this
text; they'll need a pointer to more
Ralph: exactly, the pointer is there in paragraph 2
Shane: I'm with Ralph
Mark: we could say a full description is out of scope
Shane: point to our vocab document? It's also written in RDFa
Ralph: I favor a minimalist approach in this document
Mark: the point we're stressing is in the first paragraph
... not a show stopper; this text is OK
... though I suggest adding "Though it is beyond the scope of this
document,
... before "At a high level"
<markbirbeck> Maybe: "Although it's beyond the scope of this primer
to explain the process in detail, here is a high-level description
of the process to help authors to find more information."
Axel Polleres' comments
Manu:[31]Axel's comments point to a small bit of confusion on how to
resolve CURIEs
[31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Oct/0075.html
Ralph: most of this is editorial but the first part points to a typo
Shane: yep
-> [32]Ben's reply
[32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Oct/0081.html
Shane: I believe everything in Axel's message is taken care of
... in 5.5 step 9 there was a suggested addition on which I wanted
Mark's review
Mark: I'll try to look at this thread this evening
Shane: if Mark agrees on this change (see "Mark's agreement and
explicit wording" in [33]Shane's message) I'll make it, otherwise
not
... some of DERI's comments were good catches
[33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Oct/0082.html
Publishing Issues
Shane: We should be listing the task force participants, semweb
participants
... and XHTML2 WG
Ralph: those lists are available, do you need me to send them to
you?
Shane: yes.
ACTION: Ralph send Shane the lists of participants [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
Manu: anything else we need?
Manu: looking at the updated XHTML vocab document, I discovered that
my code was generating some wrong URIs
<msporny> [base] == [35]http://example.org/foo.html#bar
[35] http://example.org/foo.html#bar
Manu: because the base URI was different from what I expected
... when you pass in this base the fragment is included in the base
<msporny> about="#baz"
<msporny> [36]http://example.org/foo.html#bar#baz
[36] http://example.org/foo.html#bar
^ an incorrect URI
Manu: this isn't an issue with RDFa; it's an issue with parser code
if the parser implementor forgets to strip off fragments
<ShaneM> current draft:
[37]http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20081004/#s_curiepr
ocessing
[37] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20081004/#s_curieprocessing
Manu: but we don't explicitly mention the need to strip fragments
from base
Shane: in section 5.2 we define "the base"
... "usually the URL of the document being processed"
Mark: elsewhere I thought we'd said something about this because
when you work out the code for @about="" you have to remove the
fragment
... don't we talk about this in the text about HEAD and BODY
Steven: but this is part of URI spec
Shane: however, we don't explicitly say it
Steven: the definition of an empty string string for relative URIs
is that the fragment gets dropped
Shane: it's more than this; it's "what does base mean"; we
concatenate to base
Mark: no, we resolve relative to base -- not concatenate
Shane: 5.4 describes what happens when CURIEs are resolved
Mark: "... any relative URIs will need to be resolved relative to
the base URI..."
<markbirbeck> Also, 5.4.2:
<markbirbeck> Note that it is generally considered a good idea not
to use relative paths in namespace declarations, but since it is
possible that an author may ignore this guidance, it is further
possible that the URI obtained from a CURIE is relative. However,
since all URIs must be resolved relative to [base] before being used
to create triples, the use of relative paths should not have any
effect on processing.
Ralph: I don't think we need to say anything more than what is
currently in 5.4
Shane: the only additional thing we might do is cite the production
for relative URI
Mark: however, base can be a relative URI and this would emphasize
that the resolution algorithm must be applied
<msporny> URL RFC: Section 5.1: If the
<msporny> base URI is obtained from a URI reference, then that
reference must
<msporny> be converted to absolute form and stripped of any fragment
component
<msporny> prior to its use as a base URI.
Mark: the algorithm is _always_ 'resolve this path relative to this
other path'
... we don't have to say base is absolute; we just have to say that
everything is resolved according to this algorithm
... the markup need not contain an absolute URI in @base but by the
time one gets to applying the RFC algorithm, the base URI will
become absolute
Manu: I'm worried that we don't have a test case
... we should add a test that has @base with a fragment
... and a relative @about
<msporny> base="[38]http://example.org/test.html#foo"
[38] http://example.org/test.html#foo
<msporny> about="#baz"
Mark: this is the same scenario as navigating to a document with a
fragment in the URI
... the base URI of the document is the URI without the fragment
<msporny> The URL that should be generated should be:
"[39]http://example.org/test.html#baz"
[39] http://example.org/test.html#baz
Shane: what spec says that the base in that scenario doesn't have a
fragment?
Ralph: I don't see that it matters whether the fragment happened to
have been stored with the base or not; it's clear that after
applying the resolution algorithm any fragment given with the base
drops out
Shane: so @about="" should resolve to a URI without a fragment?
Ralph, Mark: yes
Shane: ah, so we need a test case for that
... actually, it's the absence of @about we should test, because
@about="" does get run through the resolver
ACTION: Manu to create two TCs to test fragment identifiers dropped
during URI resolution against [base] [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
Dean Edridge's comments
-> "[41]Re: Treatment of RDFa in TAG Finding on Self-describing Web
and feed back on RDFa in XHTML1.1" [Dean Edridge 2008-10-03]
[41] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Oct/0027.html
Shane: DOCTYPE was moved to Appendix C _informative_
<ShaneM>
[42]http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20081004/#docconf
[42] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20081004/#docconf
Ralph: we have considered this issue before and there is no new
evidence presented
Shane: the additional evidence is HTML5
... we could point out that Appendix C says that _if_ the author
_does_ want to DTD validate, here's how to do it
Steven: it seems that they want any document without a DOCTYPE to be
interpreted as HTML5
... a formal reply should come from Ben, as Chair, saying we've
discussed this already and we're not seeing any new information
Shane: we already sent him that answer and he wasn't happy so it
needs to come from the Chair, and point also to Appendix C
Steven: and in 4.1 Document Conformance, we have "There SHOULD be a
@version attribute ..."
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Manu to create SVG Tiny draft comment and send to RDFa
list for feedback before sending to SVG Tiny workgroup. [recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
[NEW] ACTION: Manu to create two TCs to test fragment identifiers
dropped during URI resolution against [base] [recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
[NEW] ACTION: Ralph send Shane the lists of participants [recorded
in [45]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ben to close loop with Danny. [recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-rdfa-minutes.html#action19]
[PENDING] ACTION: Jeremy to demonstrate GRDDL with XHTML/RDFa once
the NS URI is set up. [recorded in
[47]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action03]
[PENDING] ACTION: Manu talk with Jamie McCarthy about an AskSlashdot
piece [recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action04]
[PENDING] ACTION: Manu to write summary for Semantic Web Use Cases
for Ivan. [recorded in
[49]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
[PENDING] ACTION: Manu write the perl code for Slashdot. [recorded
in [50]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
[PENDING] ACTION: Mark create base wizard suitable for cloning
[recorded in
[51]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
[PENDING] ACTION: Mark write foaf examples for wiki [recorded in
[52]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
[PENDING] ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki
[recorded in
[53]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action14]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph think about RSS+RDFa [recorded in
[54]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action15]
[46] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-rdfa-minutes.html#action19
[47] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action03
[48] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action04
[49] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action09
[50] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action11
[51] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action12
[52] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action13
[53] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action14
[54] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action15
[DONE] ACTION: Ben ask Shane to produce an updated Syntax with
editorial changes for the WG to review next week [recorded in
[55]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-rdfa-minutes.html#action17]
[55] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-rdfa-minutes.html#action17
[End of minutes]
_______________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [56]scribe.perl version 1.133
([57]CVS log)
$Date: 2008/10/09 16:20:37 $
[56] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[57] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2008 16:23:20 UTC